July 1
...serving up your daily dish.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announces retirement this morning; President Bush making a TV statement now, re: selecting new nominee...
July 1, 2005 in Comings and Goings | Permalink
I wonder if Rehnquist is next? He is the one who looks old and sickly.
Posted by: Person of Interest | Jul 1, 2005 11:29:26 AM
I didn't always agree with her, but I did respect her resolve and always learned a great deal when I read/heard about her deliberations.
Posted by: fyi | Jul 1, 2005 11:34:02 AM
It must have been those naked pictures in Jon Stewart's book.
Posted by: The Barista | Jul 1, 2005 11:36:38 AM
I suspect some liberals will one day long for her on the court....
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 12:48:00 PM
She has been surprisingly moderate on a number of issues. I, as a "liberal", am sad to see her go.
Posted by: sue | Jul 1, 2005 1:05:31 PM
Regarding The Supreme Court's recent action on eminent Domain. How are the political parties reacting to the issue?
A telling Q&A with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi...
any questions?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 1:52:03 PM
I'd share Sue's perspective. While I haven't always agreed with O'Connor, I respect her relative open-mindedness and moderate views. I do think we'll miss her, particularly once we hear what Bush offers us in her stead.
All I can say is I'm grateful to have heard Nina Totenberg's report this morning that described John Paul Stevens as "vigorous" and hiring clerks for two years out.
Posted by: Writerchick | Jul 1, 2005 2:08:29 PM
I like O'Connor, I generally thought she was a good judge. She also has a terrific last name!
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 2:13:18 PM
p.s. I don't think Rehnquist will ever retire. I think they will have to pry the gavel from his "cold dead hand".
(good for him, by the way!)
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 2:18:55 PM
This from NOW:
"Every one is devastated. This is the worst-case scenario. She was the wall between us and losing Roe...So everything is at stake. And we're issuing a call to action to everyone in America who cares about women's lives. This is going to be the most important battle in decades."
At least they are keeping an open mind, eh? The president hasn't even named anyone yet!
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 3:27:57 PM
ROC - you are having conversations with yourself! 3 in a row...
Posted by: butchcjg | Jul 1, 2005 3:31:41 PM
I stopped paying attention to Richard's blathering a long time ago, for this reason. I wouldn't have realized that he was still doing it if not for always reading butchcjg's pithy (but never negative) comments!
Posted by: Gonzo Journalist | Jul 1, 2005 3:40:29 PM
"At least they are keeping an open mind, eh? The president hasn't even named anyone yet!"
I have an open mind, ROC, but I am worried about who the president will offer up as a nominee. I am always concerned about Supreme Court nominees, regardless of who is nominating them. I am afraid that someone who does not share my beliefs about abortion will be in a position to put laws into place that curtail freedom of choice. This president shares my views about abortion, so I'm waiting anxiously to see who he nominates.
Posted by: fyi | Jul 1, 2005 3:40:38 PM
Well I agree FYI, I just think it is interesting that some of the same folks who have a hard time making up their minds about Iraq and don't want to see a "rush to judgement" also say things like "This is going to be the most important battle in decades." absent a nominee!
But it seems that NOW will oppose anyone the president nominates regardless. I can't imagine where anyone gets the idea that the left is being "obstructionist" regarding judicial nominations.
did you mean to say the president "doesn't" share your views on abortion?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 3:47:18 PM
"did you mean to say the president "doesn't" share your views on abortion?"
Yes, that's a typo in my original post.
I can't compare the decision to go to war in Iraq with being concerned about who a conserative president who is opposed to abortion will nominate to the Supreme Court. The big struggle for me is not to be a "one issue" citizen, and I like to think I'm successful most of the time. But reproductive rights strike a deep chord with me, so I'm very worried.
Perhaps NOW is concerned about what the president will do next because they know his record on issues of concern to women.
I *will* do my best to keep an open mind regardless of my political leanings. I was very worried about a few decisions that came before the court last year, and "conservative" justices surprised me in ways that gave me hope for balance on the court.
Although I am liberal, I don't think the left is perfect in how it has handled nominations in the congress or in the senate, and I do believe that there are things those on the right have reason to be concerned about. But I think calling the left and NOW "obstructionist" oversimplifies the issue.
Posted by: fyi | Jul 1, 2005 4:13:57 PM
fyi, perhaps I shouldn't call NOW obstructionist in all things. But considering this I think the moniker fits this statement pretty succinctly.
Conservatives are pretty angry by the general obstructionism of the current Democrats regarding judicial nominees. Both sides are guilty but it is hard to make the argument the Democrats haven't taken it to the extreme.
Personally I'd like to see filibusters abolished forever because it is a tool for 'grid-lock' which doesn't serve anything except obstructionism. Right or left, Democratic President or Republican President the winners of the election are entitled to an up or down vote on their proposals. Congress needs to make more decisions to which they can be held to account, not fewer. The filibuster might have been a nice gentlemanly thing in a more genteel time, but now only forces a minority viewpoint on a majority. This is wrong. Senators of both stripes like it because it is a nice shield to hide behind. "Well we wanted it but those darn other guys wouldn't let us have it." Phooey. Now shields, says I. If you can't get legislation through with a majority then the people will have their answer on the effectiveness of your political platform.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jul 1, 2005 4:37:24 PM
Okay, truce over, I guess. This ain't exactly Panmunjom, anyway. If ROC is having conversations with himself, so be it. At least they're wise, well informed, literate conversations. While Butch's comments may be many things, "pithy" isn't the right word for them save in the mind of someone else so oblivious to verbal reality that he/she also thinks they're not usually negative in their special, mal-informed way.
O'er the ramparts this weekend, everybody. And keep an eye out for those stirring broad stripes and bright stars.
Posted by: cathar | Jul 1, 2005 5:26:16 PM
ROC
am not ignoring your last post...just on my way out of town for the weekend. I'm sure there will be other opportunities to respond to what you've said.
Have a happy Fourth of July everyone.
Posted by: fyi | Jul 1, 2005 5:51:29 PM
cathar coudlnt keep his own truce!!! nannynannybooboo!!!
Posted by: butchcjg | Jul 2, 2005 11:56:54 AM
(my truce was NEVER with ROC - nor was my comment nasty)
cathar can't keep his word...hahahaha....
Posted by: butchcjg | Jul 2, 2005 11:58:52 AM
(my truce was NEVER with ROC - nor was my comment nasty to him - just pointing out that he's having conversations with himself here!)
cathar can't keep his word...hahahaha....
hahahahah!!!
Posted by: butchcjg | Jul 2, 2005 11:59:37 AM
Butch, you sorry knothead (you wrote "laughter" as if you were Woody Woodpecker on Ritalin above), I was announcing that I'd decided to break the truce with you. (Which I first proposed anyway.) Makes me feel good to realize you're as unaware as ever. Also makes me realize all over again how easy it is to trump you.
Still laughing there now, lass?
Posted by: cathar | Jul 2, 2005 1:35:40 PM
Yes - I know you announced it. That's the point, "knothead." You couldn't keep up with it...
You need someone to bully, face it. You're too insecure not to have someone to pick on and try to belittle. You've literally mentioned my name or alluded to me every single day, despite the truce. Kinda creepy if you ask me, but everyone has their infatuations, I suppose...
So again - you broke your own truce. You coudln't keep it, so you had to call it off. Pretty sad, pretty sad.
Don't worry, babeee - This is my last post to you for awhile. It felt good to do what most folks do and just ignore you.
Posted by: butchcjg | Jul 2, 2005 7:33:24 PM
One last thing, Cathar ...
It was *I* who first mentioned the truce. If you go back through the archives, I told you on May 24th that there was a truce and your response was "There's a "truce" in Korea, too, butch. That doesn't mean it's honored in much of anything save the breach."
Then, on June 3rd you decided to "create" a truce!?!
So - stop patting yourself, declaring yourself a Saint, etc.
There - now I've corrected you. You're back on "ignore" mode. Your response will be all too predictable, but I have no time for it.
Posted by: butchcjg | Jul 2, 2005 8:12:54 PM
